These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#181 - 2015-04-07 13:51:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
This might... might increase the use of gheto links (cyclones etc with Fleet boosts) for small roaming cruiser gangs don't think much else but i think step in good direction
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#182 - 2015-04-07 13:56:10 UTC
MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#183 - 2015-04-07 15:10:47 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed.


Nope. Mmjd needs to stay at 100km jump range, or make a selectable jump range. Its all too easy with all this garmur/orthrus cancer to still hold point on you if you jump 50-75km. I actually jumped 100km in my phoon to end up 50km from the garm i was trying to get away from, and his point never dropped. I did escape on next mjd cycle, but still.. you nerf the jump range, and itll pretty useless.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#184 - 2015-04-07 15:16:54 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
MMJD could also benefit from not being a 100k jump for the above mentioned lock range issue. Since if you jump past the target you are going the wrong way at top speed.


Nope. Mmjd needs to stay at 100km jump range, or make a selectable jump range. Its all too easy with all this garmur/orthrus cancer to still hold point on you if you jump 50-75km. I actually jumped 100km in my phoon to end up 50km from the garm i was trying to get away from, and his point never dropped. I did escape on next mjd cycle, but still.. you nerf the jump range, and itll pretty useless.

Unless they also drop the cooldown, spool up, and cap usage to match, but then it becomes an all purpose tool o doom. Incoming torps? MJD. Bombs? MJD. MJD usage becomes the single biggest aspect of PVPing in BCs and BS by absolute default, and nothing else comes close to the ability to reposition.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#185 - 2015-04-07 17:00:50 UTC
Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#186 - 2015-04-07 22:42:58 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed.


*Bombs, not bombers per se.

Increasing the explosion radius to 700-750 m fixes many issues.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#187 - 2015-04-08 00:28:38 UTC
I heartily endorse the increase in warp speed of BC's. Getting an armour BC across an average sized system, let alone two or 20, is a PITA. Like, why would anyone use a Ferox or Cyclone when they are so much slower than a Gila, do 20-30% less DPS, have 10-20% less tank, and are 30% slower? I mean, hello.

Oh, wait, am I saying the Gila is OP? Yes, yes I am i think.

As for the sig radius penalty on the warp rigs...I don't think that it's an issue. I may not be completely au fait on nullsec meta but I'm unaware of fleets going out expressly fit with warp speed rigs. So realistically, dropping the CPU penalty ought to see them used more widely, which is good.

Shield ships will be able to use them, which may see some interesting Crow meta develop, and warp sped Sabres etc, for ganking carebears. in these cases, sig radius is a bigger penalty than CPU, because if all you are doing is quick-warp and tackle, you just drop your weapons to make the fit work, and can then point all the victims forever.

With increased sig radius, the penalty will address the benefit gained. You're on grid faster but more vulnerable to drones to drive you off. This is balanced.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2015-04-08 07:21:14 UTC
What are those terrible low slot mods that increase warp speed? They should be revised to give a bigger warp speed bonus but require too much pg for a frigate to fit.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#189 - 2015-04-08 08:05:14 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
What are those terrible low slot mods that increase warp speed? They should be revised to give a bigger warp speed bonus but require too much pg for a frigate to fit.

I would rather see more versions of them that do this, while leaving alone the existing ones, to, ya know, give more options and create real choices.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2015-04-08 08:24:38 UTC
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#191 - 2015-04-08 09:07:19 UTC
I like both changes, Battlecruisers warping faster (with accelerate) and warp rigs getting shield signature penalties.

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#192 - 2015-04-08 09:34:42 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Nice, but not going to help much until bombers are nerfed.


*Bombs, not bombers per se.

Increasing the explosion radius to 700-750 m fixes many issues.



but not for the battleships....



What need change are all the Buffer modules, make them HARDER to fit and give more EHP. So cruiser sized hull wil NOT use 1600 and large extenders anymore. And at same time battleships and BC get more EHP ( things that help against bombs)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#193 - 2015-04-08 09:41:48 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
they do look like very good ships on paper. I will link some of my fits for ridicule but the stats are very good and when you consider that people need to get a scram on you to hold you down they're very scary in that extreme close range.

.



Problem is that you can scram a BC and still stay outside the effective good dps of several of them while using a Hac for example that usually have better damage projection.


BC just need a tweak to their mobility. Keep them sluggish but give them better top speed. That will allow them to bring their dps to bear. Also quite some of them need a tiny bit of help on fittings specially since the introduction of MJD.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2015-04-08 11:08:31 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
they do look like very good ships on paper. I will link some of my fits for ridicule but the stats are very good and when you consider that people need to get a scram on you to hold you down they're very scary in that extreme close range.

.



Problem is that you can scram a BC and still stay outside the effective good dps of several of them while using a Hac for example that usually have better damage projection.


this is a minor weakness in my eyes which can easily be reduced by, as you also say, buffing CBC's fitting stats.

Quote:

BC just need a tweak to their mobility. Keep them sluggish but give them better top speed. That will allow them to bring their dps to bear. Also quite some of them need a tiny bit of help on fittings specially since the introduction of MJD.


As I said above, I think it goes without saying that CBC's need a buff to be able to fit the modules they need far better, however. Shield focused ships really struggle to dual prop fit and get the required utility out of them. Do we need to look at slot layouts also? I mean, that Cyclone is a real PITA and could use another jiggle about.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2015-04-08 14:37:34 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
they do look like very good ships on paper. I will link some of my fits for ridicule but the stats are very good and when you consider that people need to get a scram on you to hold you down they're very scary in that extreme close range.

.



Problem is that you can scram a BC and still stay outside the effective good dps of several of them while using a Hac for example that usually have better damage projection.


this is a minor weakness in my eyes which can easily be reduced by, as you also say, buffing CBC's fitting stats.

Quote:

BC just need a tweak to their mobility. Keep them sluggish but give them better top speed. That will allow them to bring their dps to bear. Also quite some of them need a tiny bit of help on fittings specially since the introduction of MJD.


As I said above, I think it goes without saying that CBC's need a buff to be able to fit the modules they need far better, however. Shield focused ships really struggle to dual prop fit and get the required utility out of them. Do we need to look at slot layouts also? I mean, that Cyclone is a real PITA and could use another jiggle about.



Might be minor , but is enough by itself to ensure that a single BC of those types will always lose a fight against a hac that has some clue on what is is doing.

If you take longer to arrive at combat and you are surely going to bring less to the table.. why use that ship? No cost is NOT a factor, if you want to go poor mode you will use a t1 cruiser already.

BC need to be better at SOMETHING when compared to cruisers. They effectively have LESS staying power because they are easier to hit, and move slower. They do not apply more damage because its easy to control range against a BC.


Even a weirdo bonus like extended range of medium smartbombs would be SOMETHING.... something that it would do well


Without adding a completely new mechanics or bonus, the change needed is to MAX VELOCITY and fittings.


On a larger plan, changing tanking modules scales.. so that things shift towards a "larger" role (more PG and more EHP) would bennefit a LOT BC and Battleships and would NERF the super buffer T3 ships that do need nerfs.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#196 - 2015-04-08 16:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships)
making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction) through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.

ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2015-04-08 16:24:11 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships)
making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.

ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too.



Personally I think they should remain with battleship SIZE. That makes them very weak agaisnt battleships and makes not much difference against cruisers (and that was supposed to be their place,m cruiser raper, but raped by Battleships).

On other hand their limited max speed makes them unable to fight cruisers when they have the same (or smaller) weapon range as the cruisers

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#198 - 2015-04-08 17:00:27 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
besides reducing the sig on all bc's by about 60-90 each ( brutix is 305 nearly same as most attack battleships)
making it much easier too skill up and actually fit T1 warfare links would help them out a little ( resist and sig reduction through warfare links would make them useful in cruiser gangs aswell as make bc's gangs worth using over HAC's.

ofc when boosts are on grid that would help too.



Personally I think they should remain with battleship SIZE. That makes them very weak agaisnt battleships and makes not much difference against cruisers (and that was supposed to be their place,m cruiser raper, but raped by Battleships).

On other hand their limited max speed makes them unable to fight cruisers when they have the same (or smaller) weapon range as the cruisers


Thats why it would be best to give them projection and application over speed. I dont really want to see 3k/ms hurricanes or drakes (although fun, kinda makes it silly).

Again drawing comparisons to dessies, dessies are quite slower than their t1 counterparts, but have no trouble killing frigs if setup right. The reason? Projection and application.

They all have tracking and optimal bonuses (for the vanilla t1s anyway). So a arty thrasher might be longpointed by a condor, has no chance in catching him. But switching to titanium sabot allows you to track and kill or run off that frigate at range. I dont see why BCs should be any different against cruisers.

The current issue i see, is bcs have no cosistency between the races like dessies do. Which is good for variety, but hard to balance somewhat. for example, the brutix already has a tracking bonus, and the ferox optimal. To add on to that, BCs need alil more firepower to make this realistic.

Going back to the arty thrasher, its fragile, but still shoots frigate level dps out to point range. Most bcs shoot slightly above frigate dps at point range but are meant to kill cruisers. Now if they had a range bonus, this might synergize better with their role. Even fitting LR weapons they will have difficulty in fitting and application.

Then we have missile boats like the drake which are alil trickier. Since you need missile velocity and explosion velocity bonuses to make it work. Although, i could go for range over application with the drake. To help it reach out to the kiting cruisers with HAMS using faction, instead of javlin and its terrible application.

With the MMJD, this means that a BC cannot be held indefinitely by a condor/garm etc. Instead the aggressor needs to dedicate scram tackle to effectively hold a BC. Which means facing the full power of the ship. And not trying to use speed to just kite a bc indefinitely. Speed becomes less an issue in this scenario, and more about a proper gang setup to actually kill a BC.


Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Cade Windstalker
#199 - 2015-04-08 17:32:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sorry but GRAPHS and eve when a pilot is present are VERY different scenarions.

And minamtar ships are NOT more agile. They are less agile. The minamtar speed advatage means nothing (with a very few exceptions), because to be combat efficient you need to stay not much outside close range tackle from your enemy (bad dps requires that).. so if you keep your prop mod overheated... you will burn and die. Ifyou wait to react with overheat, you WILLGET CAUGHT, because gallente ships gain speed MUCH MUCH faster when you overheat and by the time you react ( at LEAST 2 seconds later... it is too late.


Real combat in eve (at least on small scale warfare where mobility of this type is relevant) is not like graphs. You need to take into account reaction time by players, server ticks, overheating, the need to kill thigns before they get to gate ... etc...


Sure, if you could play Eve with spreadsheets people would literally be doing that, but on raw stats the minmattar ships are still better at speed than Caldari or Amarr (your original contention being that they were worse on base stats, which I've roundly debunked) and they perform very very close to Gallente ships at worst, and better in general.

The scenario you're talking about doesn't get any better if you're flying a Gallente ship and so is your opponent, or you're flying Gallente and being chased by a Minmattar ship. In none of those cases are you likely to have enough lead time in a tackle-range situation to react to an overheat in time to avoid getting caught, if nothing else because of the cycle time of a prop mod. Maybe that's a problem, maybe it isn't. Either way that's not the point of this thread.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
...Stuff about plates and shields and capital letters...


It would be easier and cause fewer potential problems if the EHP of the relevant ship classes was just directly increased.

If you mess with the fittings and effect of Plates and Shields then you mess with every single ship that fits one, and that's a lot of ships. For example a lot of frigates fit a Medium Shield Extender, so if you mess with the fittings on that you mess with every frigate that uses them.

Far simpler and easier to just increase the base HP of any ship that is determined to need it and leave the tank mods where they are. This also opens up more fitting options because you're not tying the success of the hulls to those mods.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#200 - 2015-04-08 19:12:22 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

What need change are all the Buffer modules, make them HARDER to fit and give more EHP. So cruiser sized hull wil NOT use 1600 and large extenders anymore.


Goode pointe.

However, I'd rather let cruisers have the 1600mm and LSEs, and introduce even larger versions for battleships (and BC) - 3200mm plates and XLarge Shield Extenders. Twisted

Would fix T3-BS EHP imbalance. Long overdue, tbh.

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]